Allowed

Mahipal Singh @ Guddu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2023A482/10917/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings based on a verified compromise between parties, finding that continuing the trial would be futile and harassment.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in Case No. 16058 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 471, 504, 506 IPC were quashed and instructions given for entry in police record.

Mahipal Singh @ Guddu and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10917 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Mahipal Singh @ Guddu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Vinod Kumar appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 and leaned AGA for the State.

¶6

This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in Case No. 16058 of 2022, State vs. Mahipal @ Guddu & others (arising out of Case Crime No. 528 of 2020), under Sections 420, 467, 471, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Hapur Nagar, District Hapur, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur.

¶7

In compliance with the order of this Court dated 31.03.2023, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur has submitted a report dated 05.04.2023 reporting that the parties have verified the compromise. Along with the report, a xerox copy of the compromise application and a copy of the order dated 05.04.2023, verifying the compromise have been enclosed.

¶8

Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 affirms the compromise between parties.

¶9

Learned AGA states that looking to the nature of the offences, the State, though the forerunner of the prosecution, does not have much objection to advance. The offence is one which does not have wide social ramification.

¶10

A perusal of the papers shows that the parties have duly verified the compromise and in terms of the compromise they do not wish to prosecute the case any further.

¶11

The purport of the compromise is that the complainant/opposite party does not want to prosecute the impugned proceedings any further. Since the offences charged are not compoundable, the applicants have approached this Court invoking our jurisdiction

¶12

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

¶13

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the compromise and its verification by the learned Magistrate, this Court is of opinion that permitting the proceedings impugned to continue would be an exercise in futility and harassment of parties. It would also lead to wastage of time, energy and resources with no profit to anyone. In the circumstances, in order to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned proceedings ought to be quashed.

¶14

In the result this application succeeds and is allowed.

¶15

The proceedings of Case No. 16058 of 2022, State vs. Mahipal @ Guddu & others (arising out of Case Crime No. 528 of 2020), under Sections 420, 467, 471, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Hapur Nagar, District Hapur, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, are hereby quashed.

¶16

An entry shall be caused to be made in the G.D. of Police Station Hapur Nagar that all proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 528 of 2020 stand quashed under orders of this Court. It shall be ensured by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, that this part of the order is carried out in the GD of the Police Station concerned.

¶17

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur through the learned Sessions Judge, Hapur and the S.H.O., P.S. Hapur Nagar, through the Superintendent of Police, Hapur, by the Registrar (Compliance) within a week. Order Date :- 7.4.2023 Vijay

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahipal Singh @ Guddu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahipal Singh @ Guddu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Expo Trans India Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudama and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prem Lata and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulshan Garg and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another